Charges against Orangeville Sgt. Rutt will proceed

Sgt. Curtis Rutt

A motion to dismiss Police Services Act (PSA) charges against Orangeville police Sgt. Curtis Rutt has been denied.
While Rutt’s lawyer, Andrew McKay, had argued the charges were laid outside of a six-month time limitation, PSA hearing officer Morris Elbers disagreed.
“I find the notice of hearing was served within the time period stipulated,” Elbers said, while delivering his decision on Friday (Sept. 28).
Rutt was charged on Aug. 8, 2011 with two counts of discreditable conduct and one count of deceit, as well as one count of breach of confidence for interactions with members of the media. The charges stem from the sergeant’s request for a Section 25 review of the Orangeville Police Service (OPS), which would probe the service’s management and operation.
According to the PSA, charges must be laid within six months of when enough factual information is available to believe misconduct has occurred.
“The process is designed to protect officers from delay in holding a hearing. I hold the same belief,” Elbers said.
McKay had argued OPS Chief Joe Tomei had the information required to launch an investigation by, at the latest, Dec. 22, 2010 – weeks after Rutt filed his request for a Section 25 review.
However, Elbers disagreed that the information was available to Tomei.
“There was not a sufficient body of factual information to create a reasonable belief that misconduct occurred,” he said.
Elbers explained the information needed to launch an investigation became available following an interview between Sgt. Rutt and the Toronto Star, which was published on on Feb. 4, 2011. Tomei determined the contents of the article might equal misconduct by Feb. 10. The same day, Rutt was served with a notice of investigation.
“It would appear from the information received in the motion material that the media interviews reached a decisive or pivotal point on Feb. 10, 2011,” Elbers said.
Tomei had previously sought a third party to investigate the contents of the Section 25 document. While the OPP had declined to conduct the investigation, The Toronto Police Service agreed to lead the probe. The day after Rutt was served with a notice of investigation, Tomei contact Toronto police and advised them to treat the case as a disciplinary investigation.
“I must conclude that the clock was ticking on the date the decision was made to ascertain after the media scrum with the Toronto Star,” Elbers said.
Elbers said OPS could not have led the investigation as the Section 25 request falls under the definition of whistleblowing — a practice protected by law.
“The determination could not be left in the hands of the chief as he is one of, or the main principle party, in the Section 25 review,” Elbers said.
The third party investigation was a requirement for laying any charges against Rutt.
“In most instances it would be unfair to the officer if the chief made his decision prior to conducting a thorough investigation,” Elbers said. “Officers in my belief are entitled to a thorough investigation.”
Following the hearing, Rutt’s daughter Olivia said her family is “very disappointed” with the decision. She added her father plans to challenge it.
“Your tax dollars are being wasted in this kangaroo court,” Olivia said.
Although disappointed, Olivia said her family sees a “positive” aspect to the decision. Proceeding with the tribunal will bring details of Rutt’s Section 25 review into the public eye.
“This is something (Orangeville residents) ought to know and have the right to know,” Olivia said.
The PSA tribunal to address the four charges against Rutt will resume on Monday (Dec. 10).